I had some problems registering as andrewedwardjudd so had another go as andrewedwardjudd2

Well, everybody has problems registering as andrewedwardjudd - I tried it myself just the other day, and got bupkis.

Anyway, I'm sorry to see you lost so much valuable time arguing with those people (WMC and his pocket-admins, that is). Obviously it has nothing to do with whether or not you're right or wrong about the subject - when it comes to climate-change-related articles, it's not what you know, it's who you are. And as you've seen, if your name isn't "William M. Connelley," you might as well not even bother to fix anything, or even voice an opinion. You could agree totally with everything Connelley believes and still get blocked, banned, and generally treated like dirt, just because you dared to impinge on his personal territory. (And I say this as a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change myself.)

I will say this, though: You can't simply "withdraw" a so-called "legal threat" on Wikipedia and expect everything to be hunky-dory afterwards. It doesn't work that way... Once you've made what they call a "legal threat," which could be literally any sentence whatsoever containing the words "lawyer" or "lawsuit," you might as well get another IP address and start a new account. The correct way of stating the rule is: Don't threaten, just sue.

Welcome to WR, btw! I think it's just the four of us left, but four should be enough to help steer you in the right direction.

I've been reading about your case in various other venues. Your weak point was not availing yourself of some of the "rules" of Wikipedia "conduct" before engaging. Another was thinking that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, rather than the twisted Facebook/social-networking forum that it really is. Therefore, you were manipulated into losing your cool and then you were banned. And so was your wife, as those Monty Python people would (probably) say. Dear oh dear. And now you seem to be just another notch in Mr. C's belt, or knife, or whatever it is he puts notches in when he wins a Wikibattle with someone. So what's your strategy going to be now? You're not going to let him get away with that, are you?

I've been reading about your case in various other venues. Your weak point was not availing yourself of some of the "rules" of Wikipedia "conduct" before engaging. Another was thinking that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, rather than the twisted Facebook/social-networking forum that it really is. Therefore, you were manipulated into losing your cool and then you were banned. And so was your wife, as those Monty Python people would (probably) say. Dear oh dear. And now you seem to be just another notch in Mr. C's belt, or knife, or whatever it is he puts notches in when he wins a Wikibattle with someone. So what's your strategy going to be now? You're not going to let him get away with that, are you?

The aim at the moment is to get sufficient critical mass that Connolley learns that being such a disgusting individual is not going to result in personal happiness for him.

The aim at the moment is to get sufficient critical mass that Connolley learns that being such a disgusting individual is not going to result in personal happiness for him.

Then I'm sorry to say that most, if not all, of your actions thus far have probably had the opposite effect from what you've intended. Connolley is a classic example of the sort of Wikipediot who gets pleasure out of manipulating events on WP in the most game-like fashion imaginable, and your experience was probably like a trip to an amusement park from his perspective.

In retrospect, I'd say you probably should have taken the dispute "offsite" sooner than this - though that may sound self-serving, coming from me. When you're dealing with someone like Connolley, you never want to give him the advantage of trying to deal with him in a venue he personally controls...

It might also help if you'd state categorically and "unambiguously" what your personal position is on the "anthropogenic" part of "anthropogenic climate change." Even if you completely reject it, you're not doing yourself any favors (in terms of WP) by not being clear about it, though it might have seemed that way to you initially.

The aim at the moment is to get sufficient critical mass that Connolley learns that being such a disgusting individual is not going to result in personal happiness for him.

Then I'm sorry to say that most, if not all, of your actions thus far have probably had the opposite effect from what you've intended. Connolley is a classic example of the sort of Wikipediot who gets pleasure out of manipulating events on WP in the most game-like fashion imaginable, and your experience was probably like a trip to an amusement park from his perspective.

In retrospect, I'd say you probably should have taken the dispute "offsite" sooner than this - though that may sound self-serving, coming from me. When you're dealing with someone like Connolley, you never want to give him the advantage of trying to deal with him in a venue he personally controls...

It might also help if you'd state categorically and "unambiguously" what your personal position is on the "anthropogenic" part of "anthropogenic climate change." Even if you completely reject it, you're not doing yourself any favors (in terms of WP) by not being clear about it, though it might have seemed that way to you initially.

I dont see what the topic of the greenhouse effect has to do with AGW. Water is overwhelmingly the most powerful GHG. Regardless of whatever particular view a person has on AGW they should still be obliged on Wiki to describe what the greenhouse effect is based on references, rather than peculiar personal opinions.

And that is the hub of what motivated me to change the page. Terrorists are taking over Science and unless Science fights back then terrorism is going to win.

I dont see what the topic of the greenhouse effect has to do with AGW.

It doesn't matter - we're not talking about science anymore, we're talking about politics and gamesmanship. It's fine if you want to restrict yourself to a purely scientific discussion here of course, but don't expect to get anywhere on Wikipedia doing that.

QUOTE

Terrorists are taking over Science and unless Science fights back then terrorism is going to win.

True, but again you have to understand that on Wikipedia, the terrorists have not only won, they've formed their own government, re-written the law books, and are already negotiating trade deals with China. To them, you're now the "terrorist." Science is a good weapon to have at your disposal, but they've got highly effective shields against that. Meanwhile, they're painting you with a very large brush, and if you want to succeed with all this, you're going to need some paint-remover.

Again, I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm just saying that to make progress in this endeavor you might have to change your thinking a bit - and in some cases, that might even mean thinking in ways that are quite nearly opposite to how you might normally.

The aim at the moment is to get sufficient critical mass that Connolley learns that being such a disgusting individual is not going to result in personal happiness for him.

Good luck with that, but it'll be an uphill struggle. I get the feeling that the man Connolley is perfectly happy in his disgusting individual-ness. He's obviously much more knowledgable about the arcane mysteries of Wikipedia than your good self and it's going to need a lot more than ineffectual legal threats to unseat him from the Global Warmongering throne he currently inhabits. I'm not getting at you; I'm just saying.

QUOTE(andrewedwardjudd2 @ Tue 3rd April 2012, 7:34pm)

Terrorists are taking over Science and unless Science fights back then terrorism is going to win.

My. The terrorists - who see themselves as freedom-fighters - have won, mate, as Somey said. You can't fight them with reason in this, as it's all really a battle involving lots of "so what?" kind of meaningless-to-the-layman points. I'm sorry, but it is. Your only way forward is to get medieval on his (and his pals) backsides, dammit. Become like they are. Only better.

The aim at the moment is to get sufficient critical mass that Connolley learns that being such a disgusting individual is not going to result in personal happiness for him.

Good luck with that, but it'll be an uphill struggle. I get the feeling that the man Connolley is perfectly happy in his disgusting individual-ness. He's obviously much more knowledgable about the arcane mysteries of Wikipedia than your good self and it's going to need a lot more than ineffectual legal threats to unseat him from the Global Warmongering throne he currently inhabits. I'm not getting at you; I'm just saying.

QUOTE(andrewedwardjudd2 @ Tue 3rd April 2012, 7:34pm)

Terrorists are taking over Science and unless Science fights back then terrorism is going to win.

My. The terrorists - who see themselves as freedom-fighters - have won, mate, as Somey said. You can't fight them with reason in this, as it's all really a battle involving lots of "so what?" kind of meaningless-to-the-layman points. I'm sorry, but it is. Your only way forward is to get medieval on his (and his pals) backsides, dammit. Become like they are. Only better.

I dont need to operate at their level.

For example I phoned up an esteemed reference writer and he agreed i was totally correct. If necessary I can phone up every prominant climate scientist on the planet and find out if they support the looney position or they support the scientific view.

Climate scientist James Annan and Climate scientist Joshua Halpern have already indicated they are in the looney camp. These two are part of the Connelley gang

Professional and personal ridicule can be an effective tool for such a simple thing as what I got involved in. No credible sane scientist is going to support the idea that the cold atmosphere is warming the hotter surface against the overwhelming proclamation from the mass of truely expert scientists who declare there is no basis for such a silly and misleading idea.

Interestingly James Annan is quite prepared to shoot his mouth off about the Japanese who employ him and you would have to think that could be a career limiting move if accompanied with a bit of scandal that he was involved in ensuring a one sided view of reality was displayed on wiki and elsewhere. Particularly at a time of widespread government cut backs of things that are considered to be unessential. Why employ a foreigner who is an obvious liability to the Japanese government in a culture that is not that keen on foreigners to begin with? :-)

To my way of thinking these people are so stupid they can only play into my hands sooner or later.

This post has been edited by andrewedwardjudd2: Tue 3rd April 2012, 7:58pm

Professional and personal ridicule can be an effective tool for such a simple thing as what I got involved in.

Well, okay, good luck with that... All I would say is that Connelley is not a prominent scientist, nor is he likely to become one. He's a prominent Wikipediot, and professional and personal ridicule isn't just "water off a duck's back" for folks like him - it's ammunition that he will use against you.

QUOTE

To my way of thinking these people are so stupid they can only play into my hands sooner or later.

Again, no offense, but this sort of "cognitive dissonance" is part of your problem - just because someone is stupid about the greenhouse effect doesn't mean they're stupid about internet and Wikipedia gamesmanship. Indeed, I would argue that if someone like Connelley spends all his time on the latter and little of his time on the former, he'll get pretty good at the latter.

Professional and personal ridicule can be an effective tool for such a simple thing as what I got involved in.

Well, okay, good luck with that... All I would say is that Connelley is not a prominent scientist, nor is he likely to become one. He's a prominent Wikipediot, and professional and personal ridicule isn't just "water off a duck's back" for folks like him - it's ammunition that he will use against you.

QUOTE

To my way of thinking these people are so stupid they can only play into my hands sooner or later.

Again, no offense, but this sort of "cognitive dissonance" is part of your problem - just because someone is stupid about the greenhouse effect doesn't mean they're stupid about internet and Wikipedia gamesmanship. Indeed, I would argue that if someone like Connelley spends all his time on the latter and little of his time on the former, he'll get pretty good at the latter.

I am more interested in wanting to get some kind of wider satisfaction that stupid beliefs such as 'cold backradiation warming the hot earth' are exposed for the silly idea they are. Most children understand we have to supply expensive fuels to heat our homes and we cannot get warmer by removing heat from our homes and putting it back in again.

Why would anybody argue you can get warmer by such a method and be unable to realise the daft nature of that proposition? The whole saga is very odd.

Professional and personal ridicule can be an effective tool for such a simple thing as what I got involved in.

Well, okay, good luck with that... All I would say is that Connelley is not a prominent scientist, nor is he likely to become one. He's a prominent Wikipediot, and professional and personal ridicule isn't just "water off a duck's back" for folks like him - it's ammunition that he will use against you.

QUOTE

To my way of thinking these people are so stupid they can only play into my hands sooner or later.

Again, no offense, but this sort of "cognitive dissonance" is part of your problem - just because someone is stupid about the greenhouse effect doesn't mean they're stupid about internet and Wikipedia gamesmanship. Indeed, I would argue that if someone like Connelley spends all his time on the latter and little of his time on the former, he'll get pretty good at the latter.

I am more interested in wanting to get some kind of wider satisfaction that stupid beliefs such as 'cold backradiation warming the hot earth' are exposed for the silly idea they are. Most children understand we have to supply expensive fuels to heat our homes and we cannot get warmer by removing heat from our homes and putting it back in again.

Why would anybody argue you can get warmer by such a method and be unable to realise the daft nature of that proposition? The whole saga is very odd.

I can see why you lost to Ye Bastarde Connelly... you don't listen.

It's a two-stage thing.

First you get either rid of YBC or you go round him. Second; only then can you do what you are interested in.

We can help with the first, we can't help with the second.

If you don't want to do that, then whinging about WP is moot, you need to choose a different venue to publish your scientific beliefs.

A very noble thing to say. Clearly, you are a god among insects. However, when you say things like......

QUOTE

Professional and personal ridicule can be an effective tool for such a simple thing as what I got involved in.

To my way of thinking these people are so stupid they can only play into my hands sooner or later.

...... Then you're beginning to sound awfully like you're operating at their level. Which is a good thing. Yes, I know, it sounds like it's a terrible thing to say, but this is Wikipedia we're talking about. Think moderated newsgroup, heavily-policed web-forum/game server, or Dungeons 'n' Dragons. It's not an encyclopaedia or anything like that. You've got to be willing to get your hands dirty, Andy. But when you fixate on stuff like this......

QUOTE

For example I phoned up an esteemed reference writer and he agreed i was totally correct. If necessary I can phone up every prominant climate scientist on the planet and find out if they support the looney position or they support the scientific view.

Climate scientist James Annan and Climate scientist Joshua Halpern have already indicated they are in the looney camp. These two are part of the Connelley gang

No credible sane scientist is going to support the idea that the cold atmosphere is warming the hotter surface against the overwhelming proclamation from the mass of truely expert scientists who declare there is no basis for such a silly and misleading idea.

Interestingly James Annan is quite prepared to shoot his mouth off about the Japanese who employ him and you would have to think that could be a career limiting move if accompanied with a bit of scandal that he was involved in ensuring a one sided view of reality was displayed on wiki and elsewhere. Particularly at a time of widespread government cut backs of things that are considered to be unessential. Why employ a foreigner who is an obvious liability to the Japanese government in a culture that is not that keen on foreigners to begin with? :-)

...... Then you start to sound like the kinda humourless guy who takes his opinions far too seriously and eventually gets banned from Wikipedia. Which you did. No offence.